Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Armies of Lawyers, Part Deux

Well then, let me:

Powell just steamed into a series of statements as fiery as they are baseless.

She said that Gleeson had “picked up the mantle to continue a political prosecution of General Flynn that has no basis in fact or law” after arguing that the whole Russia probe had been launched “to get General Flynn, and thereby get President Trump.”

“Only in other countries have any of us seen this happen,” Powell added.

Only the introduction to the main essay, that:

Powell takes it further with each argument, if imaginable, saying that the Flynn case was a “coup to take out President Trump.”

“Mr. Gleeson is lost down the rabbit hole on the other side of the looking glass,” Powell added. 

You read that right:

After allowing Powell to go on at length about why she thinks the DOJ mishandled Flynn’s case, Sullivan asks her point blank what Brady material (the term for the exculpatory materials the government is obligated to turn over to a defendant) the government supposedly withheld from Flynn.

Powell has been alleging Brady violations for nearly a year, and Sullivan already once has issued a lengthy opinion rejecting her claims.

Powell points to a few specific things: the disclosure in an inspector general report that an FBI agent used a defensive briefing for Trump as an opportunity to collect information on Flynn; evidence that supposedly shows that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn thought he was telling the truth at the time; and supposed evidence that the FBI deep state was going after Flynn as a way to take down Trump.

The evidence she likes is good; the evidence she doesn't like is "bad" (none of the above is evidence in a court of law, BTW):

Without any hint of irony, Powell says that the judge should treat Trump’s tweets and the Strzok claims that his notes had been altered as “extrajudicial” and as “red herring[s].” 

 There's a lot more too this than I have captured, but let Mr. Kirschner provide the last thought:

The amicus gets that:

“There’s an unspoken premise that I’m not sure is correct which came up in today’s proceedings,” Gleeson said. “The government has not said that if you deny this motion to dismiss, it will not continue to prosecute this case.”

“And if you say no, they’re packing up and going home? They haven’t said that yet,” Gleeson said, adding that it would be an “enormous disrespect” to the court to do so.

Gleeson added that the case “has everything to do with the President’s belief that this is some kind of witch hunt, and an Attorney General who has said publicly that the President’s tweets … made it very difficult for the Justice Department to get the trust of the courts.”

No comments:

Post a Comment